Can you really `support the troops' while opposing the war?

The King County Journal (Seattle area) ^ | April 6th, 2003 | John Carlson (columnist & talk-show host)

[Eala]

``I support our troops, I just don't support the war.''

You're hearing that more and more from many people who oppose the war. It's a rhetorical blanket, worn for protection lest people question their patriotism. But it doesn't always sound sincere and it occasionally sounds absurd.

For instance, during last Tuesday's Pearl Jam concert in Denver, lead singer Eddie Vedder rapped the war in Iraq while assuring the crowd ``I support the troops.'' But near the show's end he took a mask of President Bush -- the Commander in Chief of the armed forces -- impaled it on a microphone, slammed the microphone down on the stage and stomped on it. I wonder how ``the troops'' would react if Vedder pulled that stunt in front of them overseas?

For more than half a year, America had what America needs more of -- robust debates about an important policy matter. Was Saddam Hussein so serious a threat to America and the world that we should force him to give up genocidal weapons even if it meant war?

Good arguments were made on both sides, and while that debate raged, protests, marches and demonstrations made perfect sense. This is, after all, America. But once the policy was decided, and young Americans were called into action to risk their lives on the battlefield, the protesters should either have closed ranks behind the president (like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton did), or stood respectfully on the sidelines.

The debate was over and the war was on with real lives hanging in the balance. Saying ``I support the troops but I oppose the war'' at a time like this simply makes no sense, logically. What do you think the troops in the Persian Gulf are doing?

If the war goes badly, you can bet there will be new debates on whether to bring the troops home. But this war by any account other than Saddam's isn't going badly. It has been an astounding success so far. Never has the American military moved so far so fast with so few casualties. America and Great Britain are not only winning the war, they are making military history.

That's one reason the anti-war movement is shrinking. But as mainstream liberals stand down, the left wing core of the anti-war movement has been exposed, and it's not a pretty sight. Three Saturday's ago, history was made in Bellevue when the largest demonstration in the city's history took place -- 5,000 people by police estimates -- to support the troops. American flags were everywhere. The mood was upbeat, patriotic, ebullient.

On that same day, about 3,000 anti-war protesters marched sullenly in downtown Seattle to the Jackson Federal Building. If you watched the news and read the next day's papers, you found out that 18 arrests were made, while anti-war leaders complained that the police were intimidating them by wearing riot gear and not letting them block traffic (they had no permit).

But here is what you didn't hear or read. The protesters closest to the police lines repeatedly tried to provoke physical confrontations. The cops were spat on - some of them dozens of times. That's a crime, but police were told by their superiors not to arrest anyone for doing it. So they kept doing it.

Black officers were called the ``N'' word, again, repeatedly. Other minority and female officers were singled out for especially ugly slurs, such as an Hispanic officer being called a ``race traitor.'' All this coming from people who call themselves ``progressives'' and ``peace activists.'' Amazingly this got zero press attention even though the press was there. And there was no criticism or condemnation of their behavior by any Seattle city official or politician.

A dirty little secret has been exposed. The core of this movement isn't anti-war; it is anti-American. And its leaders are hateful.

They hate George W. Bush, they hate free enterprise, they hate middle-America -- especially the suburbs -- they hate the cops and most of all they hate having to follow rules they don't want to follow. They have the same attitude toward America that an unruly 14-year old has toward his parents: automatic, knee jerk hostility.

Principled, patriotic liberals should start denouncing this extremism in their own ranks. At the very least stop calling them ``peace protesters.'' Not when it takes police in riot gear to keep the peace at their protests.

John Carlson is founder of Washington Policy Center and can be heard daily from 3-6 p.m. on radio station KVI-570. His column appears every other Sunday. Readers can contact him via e-mail at jcarlson@fisher radio.com.

[Eala]

As usual, John Carlson is right on!

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

We all know what motivates these folk. The same things that motivate people like Clinton, Daschle, Rangle, Schumer, Couric, Sarandon, Vidal, Gore and so many more! They all hate the father figure in their sad, pathetic lives and they've transferred that hate onto the American flag.

[JoeFromCA]

The anti-war, anti-American protestors know that America won't fall for Vietnam tactics again, when those groups took out their frustrations on individual soldiers. So they've simply hijacked the phrase "we support the troops" from those of us who really support the troops.

I have a poster on my cars that says "Support President Bush and our Troops". And whenever I hear anybody use the phrase "I support out troops", I'm immediately suspicious and begin asking questions to determine their real motives. More often than not it's a code phrase for opposition to the war.

[chicagolady]

It is voted the most "OVER USED" phrase of 2003!

[HairOfTheDog]

Agreed! - How odd that John Carlson and Ken Schram agree on this!

Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?
Komo News 4 Seattle ^ | March 20, 2003 | Ken Schram

Posted on 03/20/2003 5:52 PM PST by HairOfTheDog

Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

March 20, 2003
 
By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - I find it tough to accept.

Think about all the people who claim to support the troops, but are opposed to the war.

Is that confusion, or hypocrisy?

Maybe it's both. .... (exerpt... click link above for rest.)

[Cacophonous]

I don't have a difficult time supporting our troops and opposing the war.

Carlson's mistake is that he assumes that those that oppose the war are all the same, one large, monolithic smelly mass of deranged, drug-infected and unwashed hippy-freak leftovers, moronic college students and big-mouthed "entertainers".

Don't lump me in with those freaks.

I have a hard time accepting the reason for the war; I frankly don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people (it's a middle eastern problem), I'm not convinced Saddam had anything to do with 11 September, and any comparisons to his Iraq and Hitler's Germany are asinine to even the most casual student of history.

I cheerfully support, however, war for economic reasons: to protect American currency and economic sovereignty. (The curious part is that when I suggest on this website that this may be the real reason behind the war, I get called un-American, apparently because in the minds of the majority of Freepers, it is more American to fight for Iraqis than American economic strength. Go figure.)

But back to the troops. Of course you can oppose a war and support the young men and women that are fighting it. I hope they all kick butt (which they are), and that they all come back alive (and most of them are, thankfully). I see no conflict here.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

Taken from Bill Whittle's blog. This addresses your argument(s) I believe...

I believe that they came to realize that even if we were to pay the price of living in a police state, we cannot stop terrorists with flyswatters. Despite our best efforts, sooner of later, some of them will succeed, either with jet-fueled airplanes, or smallpox aerosols, or Sarin-filled crop dusters, or a suitcase nuke in Times Square or the steps of the capitol. As long as the failure of Arab nations generates such rage and hatred, they will keep coming. There is no end to the numbers a swamp like that can generate.

I believe that the United States government has taken a very bold decision to take the first steps to drain that swamp, and that this War in Iraq is the throwing of a railway switch to divert us from a very terrible train wreck lying ahead in the dark tunnel of history yet unwritten. Surely they know full well that this action will, in the short term, cause even more hatred and anger to be directed to us. But I see this as a chance – perhaps our last chance – to eliminate one of the states capable of and committed to the development of such weapons, and in the bargain establish a foothold of freedom and democracy in a region notable for its resistance to this historic trend.

Read it in it's entirety yourself at Eject! Eject! Eject!

[Eala]

Reading his editorials, it seems that lately Ken Schram is beginning to turn into a conservative right before our eyes.

[Cacophonous]

Thanks for the link, but it's nothing I haven't read before, and I'm still not convinced. As I said, I support the effort for economic reasons, but we apparently are not supposed to that. Leaves a fella conflicted.

And all that aside, I DO pray for our soldiers. I have many, many friends in the service, and wish them the best.

[You Dirty Rats]

I think we need embedded media in the ranks of the police line. Either that, or some of the cops should varry vamvorders so that the actions of the anti-war perps can be shown on TV for all to see.

[Eaker]

varry vamvorders

I hate it when I van't vlivk the "v" button!!!

Take vare,
Eaker

[Anamensis]

They have the same attitude toward America that an unruly 14-year old has toward his parents: automatic, knee jerk hostility.

This is the core of the problem. These folks are psychological adolescents.

[Eaker]

Forgot the

;>)

Eaker

[fr_freak]

Of course you can oppose a war and support the young men and women that are fighting it...I see no conflict here.

Supporting the troops necessarily includes boosting their morale when possible, or, at least, not adversely affecting their morale. In fact, when citizens say they support the troops, they can only mean moral support, unless they are actually sending materials, food, etc. However, a lot of these people who claim they support the troops are, at the same time, marching in protests against the war and against the commander-in-chief.

Now, I cannot imagine a greater threat to troop morale than seeing fellow citizens back home protesting the very effort the troops are engaged in. News of these protests are definitely finding their way to the troops in the field, and they lower morale. Perhaps before the actual combat started, anti-war efforts were reasonable, but once they've started, even the expression of anti-war sentiments in public without all of the traffic-blocking and flag-burning, is a slight to the troops engaged in combat.

So, if you oppose the war but you truly support the troops, as you say, then you will refrain from any public statements against the war and the President until the fighting is finished. That is not what these protestors are doing, however. Instead, they are deliberately trying to destroy the morale of ALL who are engaged in the war effort. Those actions are in complete conflict with supporting the troops.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with fighting this war for US economic or security interests, which is undoubtedly part of what we are doing there, rather than solely for freedom for Iraqis either. If you truly feel that way, than why do you oppose this war?

[Eaker]

You make a reasonable argument. (though I don't agree)

You are one of the VERY few on that side of the street that can.

Take care,

[Anamensis]

For me, even if we never prove massive Iraqi involvement in 9/11, I consider Saddam a problem linked to 9/11 because of the remarks Osama bin Laden made shortly after the attack. He said Al Qaeda targetted America for three reasons (and all three of them lead back to Saddam one way or another.)

1. OBL wants American troops out of Saudi Arabia. But of course, we were there because Saddam invaded Kuwait and was fixing to take Saudi.

2. OBL ranted about the UN sanctions against Iraq. Again, done because of Saddam, necessary because of Saddam.

3. OBL of course hates our support of Israel and wants a Palestinian state. But there will never be a Palestinian state as long as they keep terror-bombing Israeli civilians, and they will keep terror-bombing as long as Saddam pays them $25,000 a pop.

So to me, Salman Pak aside, Ramsi Yousef aside, Saddam is a virus weakening our system while we fight cancer, so he's gotta go. JMHO.

[Cacophonous]

It occurs to me that perhaps it would be more correct to say that I oppose the policies that placed our young men and women in harm's way. My protestations -- and they are pretty tame; again, don't lump me in with the freaks in the streets -- are against the policies, and the only way to get the policies changed is through the Republican/Democratic means established in our country. I write my Congresspukes, my President...post thoughts on here...

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with fighting this war for US economic or security interests, which is undoubtedly part of what we are doing there, rather than solely for freedom for Iraqis either. If you truly feel that way, than why do you oppose this war?

Because we have been told, in no uncertain terms, that that is NOT the reason we are fighting the war, which seems at odds with a capitalist society. (I was even called un-American by some robo-lemming on this site for suggesting it.)

Again, it's the policies I protest, not the troops, and not the magnicifent job they are doing.

[Cacophonous]

Thank you.

[Cacophonous]

It may be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. I have often felt our meddlesome foreign policy -- including Gulf War I and our undying support of Israel -- makes more enemies than it prevents.

I think the solution should be to start minding our own business; that greatest of Americans, George Washington, advised this, and he was right.

[LaraCroft]

You make no sense. You say you have no problems with us being there for economic reasons, but then denounce the war because it is for 'humanitarian' reasons.

Why would you care what the official reson was if the outcome of it was the same? And economically, it is a boon, any idiot can see that.

I think you are speaking with forked tongue. May I ask who you voted for in the last election?